Bibliographic record
Abstract
Static and dynamic carbonation curing at early age was developed for ordinary Portland cement (OPC) and Portland limestone cement (PLC) concrete masonry units (CMU) production. It is intended to replace conventional steam curing, improve the CMU performance, reduce energy consumption, and permanently sequester carbon dioxide in concrete. Concrete slabs representing the face shell of a 20-cm CMU as well as full sized CMU were used throughout the carbonation process. In static carbonation, it was found that initial air curing was vital to maximize carbonation reaction. After a procedure of casting, air curing, carbonation curing, and water compensation in subsequent hydration, carbonated CMUs had shown equivalent strength to steamed CMU but much better resistance to freeze-thaw damage. Carbonate-reinforced cement matrix played a critical role in improving freeze thaw resistance. In dynamic carbonation, the initial air curing was combined with carbonation with controlled relative humidity. The production cycle was significantly reduced to avoid initial air curing. The process proved to be a valid replacement of the static system in terms of CO2 uptake and compressive strength. While both OPC and PLC concretes displayed the hydration and carbonation products, only OPC concrete demonstrated an intermix of these products in the form of calcium silicate hydrocarbonate and a phase transformation of poorly crystalline aragonite and vaterite into well crystalline calcite. Based on 24% CO2 uptake, the CMU production in US and Canada is capable of sequestering 2 million tons CO2 per year. It is equivalent to 2.5% carbon emission reduction for US and Canada cement industry.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".